____ Historical Irony: "access to" vs "possession of" power

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UP: <[LINK] ???>

Historical irony provides evidence of the non-resident nature of power.

Irony , in its historical sense, is an un-intended effect, something not in the realm of the possible _from the perspective of actors at a particular time_, it is something outside the realm of trhe actors' powers. Nonetheless, it is a regular occurence, and ironic effects are often more powerful than intended effects. <[LINK]>

This is congruent with the lack of an unambiguously assignable relation between the domain of latent power and the entities involved in any possible interaction <[LINK]>

Such a domain, whether of language, power or something else, cannot be disaggregated without synchronically reducing it to a static group with well defined members

Semantics of possession--the extension of self to a

domain beyond corporeal limits--this is often how power is claimed beyond what little any individual has. another way is to claim thew ability to direct the aggregate power of a group in a way that makes it appear to be a personal domain--this is charisma?

--compare to Foucault's and Chomsky's models of discourse--the channels through which power, or language, or knowledge flow. Irony alleviates the necessity for a top of the food chain, a culpable individual entity. Irony removes the need for a conspiracy while still allowing for the observed effects of power structures and for free will. It redirects inquiry from ineffective blaming toward description.